Talk:Sundarbans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tiger website[edit]

here is a link to a website containing information on sundarbans tigers. It has weekly updates from a research team who are monitoring a radio collared tiger-

www.sundarbanstigerproject.info

I think it would be a relevent link for both this "Sundarbans" page and any on tigers

All the best

Adam Barlow barl0048@umn.edu

202.56.4.109 10:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

please help if you can[edit]

are tigers really vanishing? i read ,amazingly if true, that sunderbans are not natural forestlands, but manmade ones. and most likely to be implanted by britishers during their colonial rule. as a proof of it, it is known that the trees in sunderbans are in a straight line contrary to the principles of nature where they should have been in random order as seen on all the natural jungles. if anyone can vindicate or reprove it by via authetic source i shall be grateful to him user:nidhishsinghal email: nidhishsinghal123@yahoo.com



Sorry, this simply is NOT true. There have been various reports and accounts preceeding any European visit to Bengal. And also, the trees being in a straight line is also untrue. Thank you. --Ragib 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

hi. nice to hear from you. i know that there have been various reports and accounts preceeding any european visit to bengal for sunderban forests. but they only indicated the presence of much smaller sunderban delta with indegenious trees and mangrooves like Nypa fruticans. what the matter of fact is that sunderbans derive their name from sundari trees, the largest and tallest ones in the so called forest range. and they cover the much larger part of now what is called sunderban delta. and they are the ones which are mostly found in straight line,(its a documented fact) which further suggest a man made origin. my only doubt was that whether this extension of sunderbans was done by the brits or it predated them. may be, you can have a look at the indian side of sunderban delta (for the straight line fact) as i dont have much information about the bangladeshi side. although i really appreciate your kind reply. thanking you.

nids 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)nidhishsinghal

--nidhishsinghal

I don't know where you get these crazy information (and "documented" facts), but these are definitely wrong. For one thing, the size of the forest has dwindled currently to 1/3rd of its size 200 years ago (see Banglapedia, when the first surveys were conducted by British East India Company.
Anyway, here are some references you should dig up in your local libraries, instead of reading awesomely fascinating-sounding, but totally baseless conspiracy theories about a man-made forest.
  • D Prain, Bengal Plants, 2 vols, Calcutta, 1903;
  • D Prain, Flora of Sundarbans Records of the Botanical Survey of India. New Delhi; 1903;
  • Khasru Choudhury et al The Bangladesh Sundarbans, IUCN- The World Conservation Union, Dhaka, 2001;
  • NA Siddiqi, Mangrove Forestry in Bangladesh, IFES, Uni. Chittagong, 2001.
Thanks. --Ragib 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is really unpleasant that there is no picture of Royal Bengla Tigers for which the Sundarbans are famous. Ragib, can you kindly add a photo of a tiger?

The second thing, in the introduction of the article, why the name of India has come before Bangladesh, whereas 81% Sundarbans is in Bangladesh. Bangladesh deserve more emphasize than India when the article is on Sundarbans. Thanks. Farhad, Australia, 3 May 2012

Conflicting Tigers[edit]

There are two references to the number of tigers in the Sundarbans. I am in favour of the 700 as it has a citation. Can we please sort this out? Evildoctorcow 09:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Could the reference to the tigers being 'man eating' also be deleted since I'm sure that is not their sole dietry intake :) It seesm to me most people will realise that tigers can be dangerous to humans.--Mrg3105 19:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Question:

"There are several speculated causes as to why these tigers maul humans:"

Why do you need reasons? Why shouldn't they?

Dolphins[edit]

The Sunderbans is also home to some rare species of freshwater dolphins:the gangetic dolphin and the Irrawaddy for instance.These species are fast disappearing in South and South East Asia.They have recently come under threat due to rising salinity levels in the waters;in fact,the pin dolphin,a salt water species has recently been sighted in Bangladesh.The Olive Ridley Turtle,yet another endangered species,has its habitat here.I feel it is important to mention these in the article,as these are an important part of a fragile ecology.......Anirudh

Question from a neophyte[edit]

Hello. I just created a Wikipedia account and haven't yet edited anything, but am excited to do so. Before I do I wanted to check and get some opinions on whether or not what I had in mind is worthwhile/conforms to WP standards. I found this article because the tiger in Yann Martel's "The Life of Pi" is a Sundarban tiger, and I wanted to know more about them. Is that fact - that the tiger in the book is from the Sundarbans - worth noting in the article? Or is it too minor? Thanks!

Sjforman 16:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A good source[edit]

A good source of information for this article is this book (full text available online):

Arman (Talk) 05:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Man-Eating Tigers?[edit]

I find it very hard to believe that 500 tigers in the Sundarbans kill 100-250 people per year and nobody does anything to stop it. Could somebody verify this "Man-Eating Tigers" section and add some references? ~ FerralMoonrender (TC) 03:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This website claims that the number of human deaths was 1,000 - 1,600 in 1930s. This article, published in 1997, claims the annual number to be 300. This 2004 news item gives statistics of 59 deaths on only the Bangladesh side of the forest, on the other hand this BBC news item claims 50 deaths per year on Indian side. Based on all these it is fair to comment that the number of death is probably gradually decreasing but still an annual number between 100-250 could be a reasonable estimate. Arman (Talk) 09:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sundarbans, Sundarbans mangroves, and Sundarbans freshwater swamp forests[edit]

I undid the merge with the article Sundarbans because the Sundarbans freshwater swamp forests are an ecoregion, composed of seasonally-flooded freshwater forests, which is distinct from the Sundarbans mangroves, an ecoregion of permanently flooded brackish-water mangrove forests. They have a different ecology and species composition. The Sundarbans article is about the mangrove forests. Tom Radulovich (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved back. Sorry, there's ample space for both eco-regions here. And, things would remain less complicated and/or more comprehensive that way. Please, discuss before moving back again (if you do). Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Improvement needed[edit]

The article needs improvement. The picture given is of vietnamese tiger and the economy section is vandalised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.176.70 (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I second that. There's a lot of repeated information in this article, it oculd do with a thorough rework. I've made a start on some of it but it's still very clumsy Istanbuljohnm (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

regarding mangroves[edit]

This section:

Mangrove Adaptations

Mangrove plants live in hostile environmental conditions such as high salinity, hypoxic (oxygen deficient) waterlogged soil strata, tidal pressures, strong winds and sea waves. To cope with such a hostile environment, mangroves exhibit highly evolved morphological and physiological adaptations to extreme conditions.

Do mangroves need salt?

The answer is no. Mangroves are facultative halophytes, i.e., the presence of salt in the environment is not necessary for the growth of mangroves and they can grow very well in freshwater as well. One particular advantage to growing in a salty environment is the lack of competition! Only a limited number of plants have invested evolutionary energy in adapting to intertidal conditions. In the optimum conditions of a tropical rainforest, diversity is great and competition fierce.

Strikes me as almost definitely plagiarized. What do you guys think? --65.212.104.138 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

IUCN infobox[edit]

Shouldn't we use {{Infobox protected area}} as well? Aditya(talkcontribs) 08:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: rename.
Note that the nominator had added an RFC tag to the discussion, which I have removed. I have not previously seen an RM discussion morphed into an RFC, and although I can imagine that it might help in some intractable cases, this one appears quite straightforward. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)



Sundarbans Reserve ForestSundarbans – This article used be titled Sundarbans, which is the world's largest mangrove forest. It was mistakenly moved to Sundarbans Reserve Forest. No such thing exists. Sundarbans have 4 reserve forests within it. 3 in Bangladesh and 1 in West Bengal. The reason for the move was avoiding edit warring, where there had never been an edit war at this article. Aditya(talkcontribs) 14:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sundarbans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 15:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up later today. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this size, WP:LEAD recommends 3-4 paragraphs. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, without containing unique information (information not found in the body).
    • Standardize to one variety of English. I see both meter and metre
    • Conversions are needed for areas, distances, etc. The {{convert}} template is the way I like to do conversions, but a manual conversion is OK too.
    • Geography - "The Sundarbans has also been enlisted among the finalists in the New7Wonders of Nature." - When? What was the result?
    • There are huge numbers of duplicate links - for example, I think I saw Bay of Bengal linked at least four times, and Bangladesh at least as many. There is already a substantial amount of blue links in this article - don't dilute them by repeating linking on basic things.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Eleven dead links - see the report.
    • The referencing needs significant work. There are many sections and paragraphs, containing opinions, statistics, etc. that are partially or even fully unreferenced. For example (not a comprehensive list), see:
    • Last paragraph of the History section.
    • End of both paragraphs in Geography
    • Second paragraph of Sundarbans Mangroves
    • End of first paragraph and all of second paragraph in Fauna
    • First paragraph of Climate change impact
    • Most of second paragraph of Economy
    • Most of Habitation section
    It appears that the article is using a mix of parenthetical referencing "(Banerjee, 1998)" and footnotes. It should be standardized to one or the other (footnotes are the most common on WP, and appear to predominate in this article, but either is OK).
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Do we need two photos of a crocodile? (Predators and Aqua fauna)
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Unfortunately, a significant amount of work is needed for this article to be of GA status, mainly focused on referencing. Due to the large amounts of work needed on references, I've only conducted a skim review of prose, coverage and neutrality. Once the referencing is fixed up, I look forward to seeing the article back at GAN! Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)